|"Carbon [seat] stays are for marketing purposes only."||NatC|
Apr 9, 2003 5:51 PM
|Do you agree or disagree with this quote from another thread below?|
|re: "Carbon [seat] stays are for marketing purposes only."||twobits|
Apr 9, 2003 6:28 PM
|it's also for production purposes. it's pretty fast to knock out rear ends when you don't have to worry as much with the alignment. it's all about making the most money. just like auto makers have figured out that if you build disposible products you'll have a constant market. everything being sold these days has a shelf life. silly me for buying a steel bike fifteen years ago. i'll probably only get another 20-25 years on it....|
|sounds like someone who ...||bestT|
Apr 9, 2003 7:04 PM
|can't afford a new bike.|
|...sounds like someone...||Steve_0|
Apr 10, 2003 3:50 AM
|who blows money just because he CAN afford a new bike.
Big dif between means and needs.
Apr 9, 2003 7:32 PM
|I know a guy that sponsors a couple of teams. His team is on CAAD7's, and the other team he sponsors is on Giant TCR Elites (Al/Carbon). He prefers his CAAD7 over the Giant because he says it is lighter and rides better. He prefers using his fancy all carbon bike for long training rides, but has done 100 mile rides on his CAAD7 without any problem.
They are all good bikes, much better than what was offered ten years ago.
|just like carbon forks are nm||cyclopathic|
Apr 10, 2003 2:26 AM
Apr 10, 2003 5:34 AM
|I saw that tread and knew we had yet another anti-advancement zealot on our hands. I would say that judging from his zeal he's certainly never owned one and how can your truly be objective if you don't know what the hell your talking about? I guess some people like to talk just to hear their head rattle. Judging by sheer production numbers it appears that carbon rear stays are here to stay so get over it.
Just think of the sheer number of companies that make these things. Do you think Pinarello and Ugo DeRosa let their "marketing" departments tell them what to do? Hell no, those crusty old Italians do what they want. How about a guy named Ben Serotta? He uses them too.
I've owned bikes with and wihout and have to say that I did notice a nice ride quality BUT I think that it was because the entire frame was nice. Slapping carbon on bad Alum or Ti 'taint gonna do a bit of good. All carbon aside good frames = good frames and good frames with carbon stays = even better.
Apr 10, 2003 9:07 AM
|The most plausible increase in the sheer production of frames with carbon stays has to do with production costs as twobits mentioned above. If I remember correctly, Cannondale did a comparison between their aluminum rear-end and carbon rear-ends and found that their design reduced vibration more. However, as you alluded to, the overall design of the frame matters a great deal as do the components that accompany the frame.|
|re: Disagree...||harry hall|
Apr 10, 2003 9:50 AM
|I build steel frames and am not completely closed minded about this stuff. It would be nice to see a carbon wishbone with long-caliper brake room, 32c+fender room, and threaded sockets molded in, one for the top of the fender and one or two on the left stay for attaching lights. A randonneur bike with carbon stays would ride like a cloud--but ain't nobody making the parts yet! Hey, even better, let's have the randonneur carbon wishbone available prewired for lights. The labor saving is significant. I haven't yet built a wishbone-assed frame, but can tell you all that the rear triangle is the most labor intensive part of a frame unless you're doing fancy lugs, changing angles, or something like that. This can't not be part of the appeal to even the smallest factories.|
|keeping up withn the jones-es||rufus|
Apr 10, 2003 10:54 AM
|whether it's the predominant factor or not in their choice to manufacture them, carbon stays are the hot new trend, and any manufacturer would be stupid to not offer a competing model in that area. that's just conceding sales toi those that do offer them.
i was thinking about this the other night, and was just wondering if the move to carbon fiber forks and stays was simply to ameliorate the harsher riding characteristics of aluminum frames. it seems most people agree that aluminum offers a bit of a harsher ride, less comfortable for long rides, than steel frames did, and yet manufaturers moved to aluminum for lightness and cost reasons. and now, as a way to introduce some comfort back into the equation, they've turned to carbon. i don't think carbon stays offer a lightness advantage over regular aluminum stays, so comfort must be the main reason.
Apr 10, 2003 9:09 AM
|And see how good it's is working.
I am building up a Colnago CT1.
I am sure it is going to fell better.
In my head or in real life?I dont know!
LOOK DOWN FACTOR!!!!
|Work for me||mass_biker|
Apr 10, 2003 9:48 AM
|Got a new bike this winter - Columbus XLR8R aluminum triangle with carbon fork and chain/seat stays.
Ridden and raced on it for a bit now and can tell you that
* it is more comfortable than my old high quality steel bike (Colnago MXL) and lighter
* it is more comfortable than any of the new generation al. bikes I have owned (i.e. Giant TCR)
Stiff where it counts and comfy where it counts. And I am not a big heavy guy (<145 lbs). Yeah marketing whatever. Sandwiching aluminum between carbon works. Those that pooh-pooh it should give it a whirl in their next 100 mile ride or local race and then chime in with their thoughts.
|Big difference between Al fork and carbon, with not seatstays...||Bruno S|
Apr 10, 2003 11:18 AM
|When I went to an all Al fork to a same brand Carbon fork I felt a significant difference in ride (for the better). Reduced road buzz and vibration. Why it would be different in the seatstays?
BTW This change was because of a warranty claim and I didn't pay for the new fork which takes some of the bias out.
|Big difference between Al fork and carbon, with not seatstays...||geeker|
Apr 10, 2003 7:06 PM
|"When I went to an all Al fork to a same brand Carbon fork I felt a significant difference in ride (for the better). Reduced road buzz and vibration. Why it would be different in the seatstays?"
From an engineering standpoint, the fork is cantilevered off the bike, while the rear triangle is essentially rigid vertically. Thus the carbon fork has a much greater effect. [Disclaimer: I *suspect* the carbon stays are manufacturing convenience / marketing / appearance, but have never ridden a carbon-stay bike, so can't comment.]